- “What’re You In For?” “Lemonade.” A Boston professor wants sugary drinks handled the same way as alcohol [my new Cato post]
- Hershey, many other firms sued over “slack fill” packaging by guy who wrote book entitled “Sue and Grow Rich” [John O’Brien, Legal NewsLine]
- What if we forced food to be more local? The unintended consequences might surprise you [Jayson Lusk]
- “Shaking up the Conventional Wisdom on Salt” [Michelle Minton, CEI, in January]
- Demands in U.K. to put “junk food” in plain packaging the way some countries require for cigarettes [Trevor Little, World Trademark Review] Another demand of U.K. anti-food campaigners: stop discounting and offering deals on snacks and candies [BBC]
- Missed from 2011: FDA vetoes culinary use of the subtle tonka bean, but is it actually any more toxic than nutmeg? [Ike DeLorenzo, The Atlantic]
Posts Tagged ‘salt’
June 9 roundup
- New FDA guidelines on sodium “unnaturally low” and propose “consumption levels unheard of in any country in the world,” according to the salt guys;
- Engineering the language: campaign under way to stop referring to car crashes with the word “accident” [Jacob Sullum]
- Gawker mocked claim of man who has maintained he invented email as a teenager in the 1970s so he’s suing [NJ Advance Media]
- I’ve often joined morning host Ray Dunaway on Connecticut’s WTIC and you can listen to my Monday segment here, discussing the California bill to encourage lawsuits over climate denial as well as the Wheaton, Ill. fired cop case;
- “Dallas Pet-Sitting Firm Raises the Ante, Seeks Up to a Million Dollars in Damages for Yelp Review” [Paul Alan Levy, David Kravets/ArsTechnica]
- In the mail: “Uber-Positive: Why Americans Love the Sharing Economy” [Jared Meyer, Encounter Books] Meyer is also in the new issue of Reason with an article on “progressive” opposition to the gig economy that includes the line (h/t Steve Horwitz): “Waging a war on lower transaction costs is the definition of fighting progress.”
Nanny state roundup
- Government (including the writers of school lunch regulations) has pushed us toward a less healthy diet, part 73: the case for full-fat milk is looking stronger than ever [Time]
- “Obama’s latest food crackdown: Salt” [Helena Bottemiller Evich, Politico]
- Paternalist objections to the assumption of risk doctrine, and some answers [Avihay Dorfman via Benjamin Zipursky]
- Really, what harm can another cigarette tax hike or two do? (map: “Prevalence of illicit tobacco in 2013,” Francesco Calderoni) Tobacco is human rights issue, claims a Georgetown Law center on health and law;
- Vaping as dangerous as smoking? Really? Jacob Sullum challenges Dr. Margaret Cuomo;
- Australian physicians group urges drastic new restrictions on alcohol access, including higher purchase age, 0.0 blood alcohol driving limit, “interventions” for pregnant women [Sydney Morning Herald]
Food roundup
- Delay FDA menu labeling rules? Tinker? No, repeal [Baylen Linnekin, earlier]
- European trade negotiators would like to keep cheeses and beverages on American shelves from bearing names like Parmesan, Gouda, feta, Champagne, port, and sherry unless made over there. Nein danke, no grazie, non merci [William Watson, Cato] Weird how EU laws prevent spirits producers from being completely honest with consumers [Jacob Grier]
- Regressive-yet-progressive: “Taxing soda fits the narrative in which the obese are oppressed and soda manufacturers are the oppressors.” [Arnold Kling]
- New research (“no consensus among scientists on whether a population-wide reduction of salt was associated with better health outcomes”) could be blow to Gotham’s sodium regulation cause [Dan Goldberg, Politico New York] “Suit Halts NYC’s Misguided Restaurant Salt Warning Labels” [Linnekin]
- Lawyers in hot coffee suits still pushing “unreasonably high holding temperature” theories [Nick Farr, Abnormal Use, earlier]
- Chef turned Amish traditional sausage maker in rural Maine finds that regulation is a grind [Linnekin]
One was a salted
Busybody CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) sues the FDA to force cuts in salt content in processed food [Grub Street, Media Post, earlier stages here, here, generally]
NYC mandates high-salt symbols on chain restaurant menus
Bloomberg-era nannying continues under Mayor Bill de Blasio: “The [New York City] Board of Health voted unanimously to require chain eateries to put salt-shaker emblems on menus to denote dishes with more than the recommended daily limit of 2,300 milligrams of sodium.” [Associated Press] There are several problems with this, beginning with the coercion: it’s not the proper role of government to force itself on the marketplace as a diet and health adviser. The salt guidelines themselves, moreover, are so rigorous in their demands for salt restriction that only one in ten Americans currently succeeds in meeting them; while some persons (notably cardiac patients) can lower their risk by going on a salt-restricted diet, it seems to confer no benefit on many others and may even bring health risks of its own. Aside from breeding “warning fatigue” that encourages consumers to ignore increasingly complicated signage, the measure brings serious compliance costs, especially if restaurants try to introduce new offerings frequently or vary their offerings to reflect local or individual customer preferences. Finally, the de Blasio administration bypassed the City Council (which by design is answerable to the entire city, including consumer and business voters) in favor of going for an edict by the Board of Health. Mayor Bloomberg tried the same tactic with his soda ban, only to see it struck down by the courts.
Last night I discussed the news on Fox News “Special Report” with Bret Baier. Update: here’s a link.
“There is no longer any valid basis for the current salt guidelines”
The federal government officially recommends salt intake drastically lower than what most Americans consume — 2,300 milligrams a day compared with 3,500. Yet a vocal body of scientific critics say not only are such drastic reductions unneeded for those without specific risk factors such as high blood pressure, but cutting salt intake below 3,000 milligrams can pose its own health risks. [Washington Post]
Feta-compli?
Salt: better regulate fast before the panic subsides?
Even as the FDA prepares ambitious new rules pressuring food makers to reduce the amount of salt in their wares — recipe regulation, as we’ve called it — a new study questions whether most people in Western countries really need to cut salt after all. The study, led by Dr. Salim Yusuf of McMaster University, finds evidence consistent with sodium being a health risk for person with hypertension and those with the highest salt intake, but also suggests that most of the population is in the optimal zone for salt intake and that adding potassium-rich fruits and vegetables to the diet may be a superior way for many to fend off bad effects from sodium. The study ran jointly in the New England Journal of Medicine with a second which lays more emphasis on hazards of salt intake. [Yahoo News] More: Just One Minute, ACSH.
Food roundup
- Obama pick for USDA nutrition chief advances food-as-social-justice theme [Politico, Free Beacon and more, Jeff Stier/Des Moines Register]
- Hawaii GMO battle is one the whole nation should watch [Mark Strauss, io9]
- “Overprotective Government, Overweight Kids?” [Lenore Skenazy]
- “Cherry wars: The crazy economics of Michigan’s favorite pitted fruit” [Bridge Magazine]
- “FDA’s Artificial Trans Fat ‘Ban’: A Dangerous Step to Control Personal Dietary Choices” [Daren Bakst, Heritage via Michelle Minton, CEI]
- And in the wings: FDA readies crackdown on salt as ingredient [AP]
- French law mandating disclosure of whether restaurant food is made in house isn’t going well [Baylen Linnekin, more]